Anyone can read the Bible. - Really?

Pineal said:
? Was a specific argument demolished in this thread?
Click to expand...
No. What makes you think there might have been? I demolished (metaphorically) Signal, who displayed low reading comprehension, then attempted to bluster his way around recognising that.
 
Ophiolite said:
No. What makes you think there might have been? I demolished (metaphorically) Signal, who displayed low reading comprehension, then attempted to bluster his way around recognising that.
Click to expand...

Really, this is what I did?
Because earning and maintaining the - oh, ever so fragile - respect from you should be on the top of my priority list, neh?

:rolleyes:
 
Signal said:
If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said.

But in some religious circles, this assumption is not considered appropriate. Instead, it is believed that a person must first have particular qualifications (such as humility), before they can hope to understand scriptures.

Signal said:
If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said.

But in some religious circles, this assumption is not considered appropriate. Instead, it is believed that a person must first have particular qualifications (such as humility), before they can hope to understand scriptures.


Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?
Click to expand...

Anyone can read the Bible and derive meanings from it. But those meanings can be just about anything depending on the strength of that person’s bias.

It helps if one has humility. But even the humble will have a bias.

The key to understanding scripture is the Revelation of the Holy Spirit. First baby steps and if you are prepared to take those steps with the Holy Spirit you soon start to walk and then run.

Some people though refuse to take those first few steps.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?
Click to expand...

Anyone can read the Bible and derive meanings from it. But those meanings can be just about anything depending on the strengh of that persons bias.

It helps if one has humility. But Even the humble will have a bias.

The key to understanding scripture is the Revelation of the Holy Spirit. First baby steps and if you are prepared to take those steps with the Holy Spirit you soon start to walk and then run.

Some people though refuse to take those first few steps.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Ophiolite said:
No. What makes you think there might have been?
Click to expand...
I thought it was the most charitable and potentially true interpretation. I doubted that even metaphorically Signal was demolished - I am not even sure what that would mean. I suppose I take a dim view of announced self-triumphs over others, but I was trying to get at what kind of announced triumph it was. It seems to have been the odder one.

One could deny the fact that one's argument was demolished. But where does one get the wherewithal to deny one's self has been demolished? even metaphorically?

I demolished (metaphorically) Signal, who displayed low reading comprehension, then attempted to bluster his way around recognising that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Pineal
I think there are Christians and Jews who question specific portions of their scriptures and these are not an insignificant minority.
Click to expand...

Signal said:
Then they are not exactly members.
Click to expand...
Of the religions, sure. Some members of their religions might think they are not, but others would accept them, even if disagreeing over the specifics. I don't think membership is religions is always so digital. In fact fundamentalists are often distinguished from other members in that everything in the Bible or other scripture is both true and generally literally so. Non-fundamentalists come in various 'degrees' of taking the Bible metaphorically and true in detail.'

Reform Judaism refers to various beliefs, practices and organizations associated with the Reform Jewish movement in North America, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.[1] In general, it maintains that Judaism and Jewish traditions should be modernized and should be compatible with participation in the surrounding culture. Many branches of Reform Judaism hold that Jewish law should be interpreted as a set of general guidelines rather than as a list of restrictions whose literal observance is required of all Jews.[2][3] Similar movements that may also be called "Reform" include the Israeli Progressive Movement and its worldwide counterpart.
Click to expand...

as opposed to Orthodox and to a lesser degree Conservative Judaism.

As an outsider can you really say they are not Jewish? Or that non-fundamentalist Christians are not really Christians?

I looked up Biblican inerrancy and found this relevent quote....

Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible is without error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.[11] Other Christians believe that the Scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.[12]
Click to expand...

And then under Liberal Christianity we find whole groups who do not take the scriptures as perfect infallible texts - if such a thing can even be done anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

In addition to formal groups that do this, individual Christians and Jews do this within their groups and yet are members.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Knowledge91
Why am I superior to a deer? Because I can kill an entire group deer in an instant and I wouldnt even bat an eye.
Click to expand...

But be a dear and eye a bat instead.
 
Ophiolite said:
I don't see how you extract that sense from my list.
1. Knowledge of historical context.
2. Critical thinking skills.
3. Ability to source and understand scholarly research
4. Absence of any strong prejudicial beliefs

You appear to be taking the position that anyone with these characteristics would arrive at an atheist position. That would appear to be valid if and only if there is no God.
Click to expand...

I assume that Signal is thinking about the idea, which one can find in schools and sects of a number of religions, that truly understanding scripture (or being able to make use of it appropriately) requires some special preparation and starting point. That preparation might be personal instruction by a guru, the appropriate tantric initiations, some level of meditative attainment, or perhaps personal faith, God's grace or a visitation by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, Signal seems to be questioning whether use of the normal scholarly apparatus is sufficient. To treat a religious text as if it was just another worldly writing, to read it in a totally secular manner, which is how you (and I along with you) suggested that these texts can be read, might result in the reader somehow missing the religious content entirely.

That's a legitimate concern and none of us has come close to "demolishing" it yet.

Positing that seems to indicate that you have a strong prejudicial belief in this matter and should be excluded from the attempts to understand scripture.
Click to expand...

I guess that I have low reading comprehension as well. That sounds like an elliptical way of telling Signal to shut up.

But if it's taken seriously, then what does it imply concerning Signal's point? Are you suggesting that people who possess some special religious relationship to the religious text (whether devotion, teaching, experience or inspiration) are therefore "prejudiced" and should therefore be excluded (by whom?) from reading and trying to understand that text?

In a university faculty club, from a secular academic viewpoint, that idea might have some truth. Too much personal emotional investment in the subject being studied might easily erode a scholar's objectivity.

But doesn't that suggest that readers need to ignore the deeper religious significance of the text in order to understand the deeper religious significance of the text? Can that be right?

This is a real issue in the academic study of religion. We see it illustrated here in the United States in the distinction between the religious studies departments at secular research universities on one hand, and denominational religious seminaries on the other. Both might award doctorates in religion, but their programs are often approaching the same subject from opposite directions. One is approaching it from an arm's-length critical-analytical perspective, the other from a committed faith perspective.
 
Yazata said:
I assume that Signal is thinking about the idea, which one can find in schools and sects of a number of religions, that truly understanding scripture (or being able to make use of it appropriately) requires some special preparation and starting point. That preparation might be personal instruction by a guru, the appropriate tantric initiations, some level of meditative attainment, or perhaps personal faith, God's grace or a visitation by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, Signal seems to be questioning whether use of the normal scholarly apparatus is sufficient. To treat a religious text as if it was just another worldly writing, to read it in a totally secular manner, which is how you (and I along with you) suggested that these texts can be read, might result in the reader somehow missing the religious content entirely.

That's a legitimate concern and none of us has come close to "demolishing" it yet.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thank you for the succint summary.


But if it's taken seriously, then what does it imply concerning Signal's point? Are you suggesting that people who possess some special religious relationship to the religious text (whether devotion, teaching, experience or inspiration) are therefore "prejudiced" and should therefore be excluded (by whom?) from reading and trying to understand that text?

In a university faculty club, from a secular academic viewpoint, that idea might have some truth. Too much personal emotional investment in the subject being studied might easily erode a scholar's objectivity.

But doesn't that suggest that readers need to ignore the deeper religious significance of the text in order to understand the deeper religious significance of the text? Can that be right?
Click to expand...

This is the corollary of considering the normal scholarly apparatus to be sufficient, or even optimal.
 
Arioch said:
@Knowledge --

Nope, I already leapt off the cliff. I was a theist, remember?
Click to expand...

And you fell, and fell because you have no faith. See, my faith is a set of wings.. here I come, im comming to snatch you and bring you up... oh wait, you reject Christ. Seeya
 
Knowledge91 said:
And you fell, and fell because you have no faith. See, my faith is a set of wings.. here I come, im comming to snatch you and bring you up... oh wait, you reject Christ. Seeya
Click to expand...
This kind of gloating has always struck me as fitting very poorly with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. Though since I am no longer a Christian at least some members of the thread would say I cannot accurately weigh in. And I will certainly admit there is no specific biblical injunction.

The closest might be...
“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
Click to expand...

But perhaps you like people gloating when they think you are missing out.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
In a university faculty club, from a secular academic viewpoint, that idea might have some truth. Too much personal emotional investment in the subject being studied might easily erode a scholar's objectivity.
Click to expand...
Actually I think literary scholars are allowed to spend the thousands of hours often necessary focusing on texts they love. This does not disqualify them. In a sense to do so would be to preemptively ad hom.
 
Personal bias, whether the person's or your own, is never a reason to disqualify a person from debate. it's a reason to look much more closely at what they're saying and why, but it's just not enough to justify removing someone from a debate. An argument stands on it's own merit, if it's right then it doesn't matter whether it's Hitler making the argument or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top